Using judicial ethics to silence dissent?

We’ve been monitoring what appears to be a developing story and that story appears to be an attempt by the JC\AOC to silence dissent and to encourage continued “speak with one voice” behavior through the employment of judicial ethics as the big stick.

“The committee cautions that judges should be wary of inviting lawyers to seek particular results that benefit the judge’s court to the detriment of other courts. For example, a judge should avoid requesting that an attorney ask a legislator to move courthouse construction funds to general trial court operations.”

The part in black is obscure enough to have the intent of punishing judges for not speaking with one voice. The example given is a bright line protection measure to protect the judicial council and the AOC from criticism. Advocating the death of CCMS at 560 million dollars would \ could arguably impact those courts who bought in to the big lie, ergo it would appear to be a violation of ethics to comment upon one of the many failed AOC programs simply because it is likely to be interpreted as detrimentally affecting another court.

Just set aside the fact that continued development would have and already has detrimentally affected all courts by making the judicial council and the AOC and by logical extension, the judicial branch’s follies into both software and construction the laughingstock of all California government.

At least the DMV had the foresight to terminate their tandem project at a mere 50 million dollars while the AOC spent more than 13 times that amount for the same nothing.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Attorneys groups have generally been advocating greater funding for the judicial branch. Our problem with that is that these advocates have been fitted with blinders and for the most part have ignored the monumental waste of public funds exhibited by the AOC through the use of incompetent developers charged with making a case management system, the use of unlicensed, grossly overpriced contractors to maintain every courthouse from the Oregon border to the Mexican border, the commitment to spend 1.8 billion dollars on just one courthouse, a hundred thousand dollar embezzlement that went without charges or a crime report even being filed.

This is all by Judicial Council intent and by AOC design. Having completely lost control of the message, they want to use the power of retaliation to silence dissent and have it legally enforceable.

Of course those that wish to jump on this support bandwagon are those who have courthouses in the works while those who are probably on the dissent bandwagon want to see the courts survive.

This paragraph appears to strike out at the members of the ACJ and other dissenters who agree with the ACJ’s premise that “Courts are not computers or buildings. Courts are sessions of people — where children in foster care have their fates decided, where crime victims and injured persons, and those accused of crime or causing injury have their day in court. Access requires open doors.”

It also strikes out at judicial advocates of funding parity for it makes perfect sense that if San Joaquin is advocating for funding parity that parity is going to come at the cost of some other court.

The JC\AOC currently has this out for comment and there have only been a few comments thus far. We would hope to see a whole lot of people weigh in on this as the advocacy you are protecting is your own. You appear to have until December 19th to comment.

Thanks for this post. Funding parity does not necessarily have to come out of another court. Excluding the facility program, the AOC’s budget is $198 million, of which $74 million was spent on payroll, if John Chiang’s website is pulling accurate numbers. Where does that $198M go? San Joaquin has a $2.2M budget hole, Kings has a $2.8M budget hole, other Central Valley and Inland Empire courts need additional funding. LA is the challenge because it is so large. Diverting 10 percent from the AOC’s budget to the trial courts just this year would help many of them. After all, court employees are asked to take 5 and 10 and more percent pay and benefit cuts — the AOC can take the same medicine.

When we know where the AOC’s budget actually goes, and they can justify it, appropriate decisions can be made as to how much they should be funded.

Until I worked in the judicial system, I never realized that when lawyers became judges that they somehow gave up their First Amendment rights to speak on an issue of public importance — their court’s needs. We cannot rationally and justly solve our problems if we cannot discuss them.

“. . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . .”

That’s an inalienable right. And it cannot be taken away or abolished by the AOC and their self-serving machinations.

Thank you for your important work. I mentioned this site in a speech to around 300 residents of the Mendocino coast last night at a hearing to stop reductions to the coast court from being imposed by the county seat in Ukiah, some 1 and 1/2 hours over winding mountain roads distant. The proposed cuts were rescinded — for now. On the video, I could see one of the judges sitting behind me nodding her head enthusiastically when I urged the audience to look at what’s going on at AOC and even more so when I mentioned the name of this site.

I’m hoping that as a result of this article there will be far more than 7 comments waiting for the JC’s review come Monday.

Unfortunately, I left a comment on the JC public comments link — at the same time as my friend Ret. Judge Jim Luther did. Apparently, dissent from me was not acceptable. I don’t believe I saved a copy. But if I get time tonight, I’ll give it another whirl. The truth hurts, sometimes, huh AOC?

Unfortunately most trial court employees (including judges, managers and clerical & support staff) have no idea or real interest in whats going on unless their court(room) or they themselves are directly affected

Even fewer know about JCW or ACJ or are afraid to access these sites

If somehow these folks could be mobilized into becoming Makara’s they could really stir up the pot and tap into growing anger from the public and local government officials about the arbitrary cuts trial courts have had to make. Most courts did not handle the political and public relations aspects very well; and many of the cuts are viewed as ill-planned and look like political retaliation instead of unavoidable but rational fiscal decisions

If every one would send JCW posts & comments on to other court employees and other interested parties we might get wider public interest and pressure on the JC/AOC from the Legistative & Executive branches and the media

What became clear, following a CRC records request, is that the reductions were premature and/or entirely unnecessary. I put my butt on the line as a lawyer in a rural county by addressing the apparent manipulation of our budget by our XO and/or PJ before 7 of our 8 county judges, dozens of public officials, and hundreds of the public in attendance at the public meeting.

Our geographically bifurcated county (it’s easier and quicker to get from Ukiah to Santa Rosa and from Santa Rosa to San Francisco, than it is from Ukiah to Fort Bragg — making the two cities the equivalent of one or two counties distant) requires a courthouse on the coast. But the Notice of Reductions was based on information months old and conflicted with the baseline budget submitted to the JC on 10/9, which showed a reserve of $90K rather than the $769 “current reduction” addressed in the Notice of 10/30. And another $345K in “additional funds” (I posited that it was likely these were in the coffers all along because I’m unaware of any recent allocations) mysteriously appeared two days before the public meeting.

We’ll see what shakes down, but there is no way I will not continue making records requests because the county seat too easily assumes a lack of oversight. It’s not easy to parse trial court funding — allocations and reductions are related to dozens of funds, they are distributed (or taken away) numerous times a year, and the public rarely has access to current information on the JC site.

As can be imagined, you don’t often get what you ask for in a records request, no matter how directly you word it. That happened here. And I’m about to prepare our 4th, even though the cuts were rescinded because we need to get help for our clerks and plan for the next FY. They will probably think twice before targeting our coast court, though, which serves 1/3rd the county population but receives between 10 and 15 percent of court resources.

The above article holds out hope to see “a whole lot of people weight in” but “there have only been a few comments thus far”. Indeed there are only 9 comments posted thus far. Seems there would be many, many more comments addressing this important issue with potential First Amendment implications. I think I may have an answer for you.

I’ve sent two comments — one on November 30th, one on December 4th. Neither of them were accepted by the Judicial Council for posting. The second notes the irony of the JC/AOC’s refusal to accept a comment critical of efforts to silence dissent.

So, it’s not simply that the JC/AOC is proposing a new judicial ethics rule which will be used as a mechanism for silencing dissent, They’re refusing to post comments critical of the proposed rule and of the AOC itself.

I URGE EVERYONE TO SEND IN COMMENTS AND TO PLEASE KEEP TRACK OF THOSE THEY SEND (and then report back here after giving the JC a day to review and post or delete as “inappropriate” — that is, not sufficiently obsequious. My colleague, Jim Luther’s critical comment was posted, but if he raised a stink, people would notice. So, too, if LOTS of people comment — a dozen ordinary citizens are probably the equivalent of one retired judge to the elitist calculations of the AOC). Clearly, the JC wants not only to speak with one voice, it wants to only hear one voice as well.

THERE’S LITTLE POINT IN THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENTS IF THEY’RE PERMITTED TO HAND-PICK THOSE VIEWABLE TO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE.

Please don’t let this happen to the public’s input into the workings of a government agency. Thank you!

Ah, Makara, as most everyone here knows, censorship is alive, well, and thriving, at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. What a stellar reputation for the branch of state government that is supposed to stand for the defense and value of telling the truth. We don’t call 455 Golden Gate Avenue the Ministry of Truthiness without good reason.

Night before last, our County’s presiding judge and six of his judicial colleagues drove 60 miles
through heavy rain and dangerous winds over treacherous mountain roads to meet with more than
300 of those of us who live here on the coast, and exhorted us all to work with “Save Our Coast
Court,” a group of coast lawyers, to help them find ways to save our Coast Branch Court. (And
we all responded that we would.)

Your draft formal opinion 2012-0001 would call what they did unethical.

In thinking about the DOF’s decision to advance the 1% limit to this FYs operating budgets, the AOC may inadvertently accomplish its goal of choosing their own PJs for each court. Considering GC Sec 77206.1, which allows the AOC to appoint a trial court’s manager of fiscal operations if expenditures exceed the court’s budget, and GC Sec 13324, which makes the PJ personally liable for exceeding a FY budget by paying the overages, who in their right mind would want to take on that position these days? And what government agency or household comes within 1% of their projected annual budget? It’s especially challenging for trial courts, since their allocations and reductions come at unpredictable times of the year in unpredictable amounts, and there are regular adjustments to those sums. What a mess! Really.

And you’re right about the comparative cost of our court, serving 30% of the county population, and a single high-level AOC job in SF. The 3 clerks at the Ten Mile Courthouse in Fort Bragg cost $243K (including benefits) but since there were 7 just a few years ago, and they’ve fallen far behind on their work, I expect we’ll now finally be able to get another position filled — it wasn’t been terminated, despite a months-long vacancy. But it was the court reporter position, which, at half-time in Fort
Bragg, costs $60K per year w/ benefits, which would have caused the transfer of all felony and juvenile proceedings and other matters an hour and a half inland to Ukiah. So, yes indeed, it requires slicing only a few bathroom breaks at the AOC to keep our court running.

Fresno Superior Court closed all 10 outlying courts throughout the county in July and transferred judges, staff and cases into Fresno. Drives of 100 miles or more to conduct court business are now forced on a largely rural improverished population, FTA’s are increasing, and downtown calendars are more clogged than ever. Small city law enforcement personnel have to spend a lot of time in Fresno instead of remaining in their communities. Very little advance public notice was provided by the court, and local officials had no opportunity to comment or give their input, or any time to explore possible alternatives

Real “savings” to the court – under $400,000 – from a court budget of $60 M

Real costs and other impacts passed on to local government and the public – immeasureable

Local political cost – huge. Fresno’s PJ had an unpleasant time before the Board of Supervisors at the time, and recently was given a rough reception by the County Council of Governments.

Undoubtedly similar scenarios are being played out in many counties large & small around the state. Just think of what they’re going through in LA. – and the hard feelings that may never heal.

So in addition to alienating the State legislative and executive branches, the courts have managed to piss off local government land law enforcement as well. Good luck operating a court system without their support. Just call San Francisco for help

And the worst is yet to come

Ethics threats or not – the judges MUST stand up and be heard. Look at what they’re doing in Egypt – and they’re facing a lot more than a “zinger” from the CJP. It can’t fire them all!

They should lead a drive to recall the Chief and elect the JC

Court employees should do the same – but more cautiously. Work one-on-one or in small groups. People want to hear what you have to say, and you have more credibility than elected officials and bureaucrats

I know this will be an unpopular comment but at what point do we take some accountability for where we choose to live? When i decide to choose my home i take into account my commute and the possibilty i may have to travel if my workplace has more than one location. The same goes for the public that chooses to live in remote areas far from services most of us take for granted.While i am familiar with the road these folks may have to travel and i do feel for them, we have to be realistic here. I know there has been moves to close the Fort Bragg court for sometime so this closure should not be a huge suprise to anyone in Mendocino. Good luck to you folks.

I have to disagree with you, courtflea. Your argument is not too dissimilar from suggestions that those who live in flood and hurricane-prone New Orleans, and now NYC, should expect to suffer on their own merely because of where they chose to make their home.

We STOPPED the closure of the courthouse in Fort Bragg by mustering the support of all law enforcement agencies and the District Attorney as well as quickly creating a website through which the public sent comments to the court. Having only a week between the time the site went online until the public hearing, we gathered 400 public comments which were emailed to the court in Ukiah. About 300 people showed up in the midst of a powerful storm to express their opposition to the cuts at a hearing attended by all but one of our county judges. This show of strength led the Ukiah judges to rescind their cuts.

The notion that court services should be centralized in big box-store centers at the county seat may make financial sense to those who provide the services, but not to those who need them. And who, ultimately, are laws and courts created to serve? Of all government services, access to justice is among the most important because it provides the populace with a forum for non-violent resolution of their disputes. It’s intended to be local because our courts reflect the values of our communities in determining what’s just and appropriate to any particular dispute or offense. (I’d like to see a conversion to a 2/3rds commitment to mediation and 1/3rd allocation of funds for litigation, which would surely save big bucks, but that’s another story, requiring a shift in the infrastructure.)

The 30% of Mendocino County living on the coast pay the same rate of taxes as those living inland, closer to the court. Like the explanation of the effect of court closures in Fresno given by Stuart Michael above, the savings for the courts don’t come close to offsetting the added costs to law enforcement agencies and the public. For a savings to the court of the half-time salary of a court reporter, $60K, we calculated, with help from the Fort Bragg Police Chief, that hundreds of thousands of dollars in added expenses — direct (to individuals who’d now be forced to make the challenging 3 hour round-trip, resulting in added gas costs and the expense associated with vehicle wear and tear and lost wages and business) and indirect (additional tax dollars for police overtime and to replace officers sitting in the court hallways with a patrol officer to avoid the risk to public safety — for as long as that would be feasible) would be incurred only by the portion of the population unfortunate enough to be outnumbered by those living inland. When considered from this perspective, the assumption that court services should only be readily available to those in large population centers is short-sighted and makes a net negative of fiscal sense.

And let’s also step back and consider what’s happening to our planet from all the added carbon emissions caused by requiring longer driving distances to obtain government services, by increased shipping distances resulting from centralized agricultural operations, and the closure of neighborhood shops because products in big box stores cost slightly less. Overall, someone’s gonna have to pay for what seems like a better, cheaper deal for those reaping the short-term benefits of this culture of centralization. And that someone, as it turns out, is all of us.

Whomever is in charge of parsing the public comments to the Judicial Council website has now rejected my third comment. I’m giving up. How do we bring this to the attention of those in a position to publicize how unrepresentative these “public” comments actually are?

It was standing room only for the Nov. 29 meeting on proposed cuts to Ten Mile Court.
“I can tell you today that we will not reduce court services in Ten Mile Court as planned. I hope you heard the last two words, ‘as planned,'” Judge Rick Henderson told an overpacked Town Hall Nov. 29. “The main reason was the strength and breadth of the objections that we got from all of you.”

With all seats full, several people stood on their toes in not-so-great weather outside Town Hall, trying to hear what was happening inside.

The community-wide response started almost immediately after Mendocino County Superior Court’s Oct. 30 announcement that the Fort Bragg Ten Mile Court branch would face several reductions and “no longer conduct hearings in criminal felony and juvenile matters.” Jury trials and in-custody matters were also slated for elimination.

Judge Henderson, presiding Judge of Mendocino County court, spoke for county judges and staff. Judge Dave Nelson was in San Diego at a meeting, but judges Ann Moorman, John A. Behnke, David Riemenschneider, Cindee Mayfield, Jeanine Nadel and Clayton Brennan were at the meeting.

In his opening comments, Judge Henderson incited laughter and applause by saying, “If any of you wanted the judges to experience, firsthand, the problems of driving over the hill during … (applause). It rained solidly all the way from Ukiah until about Camp 19.”

The motive behind the cuts

“We knew from the beginning that it would impose some hardship to people on the Coast,” Judge Henderson said. “We knew the decision would be unpopular,”
According to Judge Henderson, none of the judges wanted to close the Coastal courts, and that budget cuts were made for financial reasons.

He said budget and cash flow are the two foremost problems faced by the court system. He explained the governor and state Legislature set aside a flat amount of funding for the judicial branch and is used to run 58 county courts, the appellate court, supreme court and court administrative offices. The funding is divided into categories and allocated to each of the 58 counties.

“Our court is not involved in the discussions that result in the amount of money we get in Mendocino County,” he said. “When we do get that amount of money, it’s up to the eight judges and the court executive officer to set a budget for the court.”

Noting that all the information is available online, Judge Henderson said the current fiscal year budget is $5.6 million.

“We do get some additional money that comes from grants or miscellaneous sources,” he said. “That might account for 5 to 10 percent of our budget.” Using slides, Judge
Henderson showed that from 2008 to 2011, the court budget was reduced 26.9 percent and 9 percent more in 2012/2013. The court has already received its 2013/2014 budget, which came in at 4.5 million, making a total reduction of 46.8 percent since 2008.
“That’s the nature of the problem we’re faced with,” Judge Henderson said. “So we sit down and try to figure out, as judges, where we can cut.”

Salaries come to 81.2 percent of expenditures, he explained.

He said it would be hard to realize any savings by cutting security, general expenses facility operations or information technologies from the budget.

“If we make budget cuts, which we have to do, we almost have to go primarily to the area of personnel,” Judge Henderson said, explaining a diagram showing cuts made since 2008. “Our aim has been to not reduce services in court, so what we’ve done is cut people from administration and cut people with higher salaries.” Full-time positions were reduced from 78 in 2008 to 55 presently, a 29 percent reduction. This year alone, the court realized $491,289 in reductions through eliminating and reclassifying certain positions. Judge Henderson said those cuts resulted in a small positive balance of $380,000.

“The reason we have that is that we’re looking at the 20 percent reduction we have to make next year,” he said. “We don’t want to have to wait until the first day of the budget year next year and have to cut around $1 million. We are trying to keep a reserve to help carry us over.”

Regarding said cash flow, Judge Henderson explained that until last year, the courts have always been able to keep a positive cash flow, allocated in several payments.

“Sometimes those payments [were] so late, we could not make payroll if we did not have a reserve,” he said. “The Legislature, when they were trying to save money, prohibited the courts from maintaining a reserve of more than 1 percent, which is not sufficient to cover these shortfalls.”

He said the judges are trying to meet budget expectations without restricting the level of judicial services to the community.

“When we made this decision to reduce services in Ten Mile Court, we were aware of the problems you all have in driving back and forth between Ukiah to Fort Bragg,” he said. “Based on the storm of protests from individual citizens, from lawyers who practice before the court, from law enforcement, the District Attorneys Office, the mayor, City Council and the Board of Supervisors, we think we stubbed our toe on this decision.”
Henderson continued, following a round of applause, saying he’s received over 200 emails and many letters and phone calls opposed to the proposed reductions. He said the court has been able to secure a cash advance and some other funding.

Judge Henderson said he is, at this point, unsure how the court will make necessary reductions of about $1 million in the coming fiscal year, and that more evaluation of the situation will occur during the governor’s May revise of the budget.

Response swayed the verdict

“I’ve never seen so many citizens concerned about the court system,’ he said smiling, “Usually we only hear from law enforcement and lawyers because our changes affect them and their scheduling.”

He said the court wants to work with the community to make state legislators aware of the impacts to county courts.

“They’re coming from every court in the state,” he said about the notices sent out notifying residents of proposed reductions. “Almost every one are reducing services, closing courtrooms and closing branch courts so this is not something that is isolated to Mendocino County. I’m just asking that you work independently to contact our state legislators or work with the ‘Save our Coast Courts” group and contact Jeff Tyrel, representative for Senator Noreen Evans and Ruth Valenzuela, representative for Assembly Member Wes Chesbro. We need to keep the legislators involved.”

Judge Henderson recalled the issues of State Parks proposals to charge for parking and the public outcry that shut it down.

“That’s what we want,” He said. “We’re going to work on it and we want to work with all of you.”

More information about the county court system can be found online at http://www.mendocino.courts.ca.gov/index.html
To read the rest of the story, pick up your copy of the Advocate-News today or call Sue at (707) 964-5642 to start your subscription or e-edition.

The rest of the story actually gives the address for this website. I simply mentioned the JCW organization to those in attendance. The paper did the rest. It’s a long, two-part article to be continued next week. (Our local papers are weeklies.)

For clarification purposes makara28 (and others) we haven’t rejected your comment. What you’re referring to is being censored by the AOC with respect to your third comment that you’ve submitted that should go in this thread linked below. The AOC does not appreciate any public comment that shows them in an unfavorable light. With that being said, we’ve often seen them post over there what was posted over here first as they know this site gets more traffic and the cat is already out of the bag so to speak.

I’m not understanding you, or is JCW not understanding me? Did I not post the third comment to the CJEO 2012-001 link? And how would JCW know if I didn’t? I’ve posted 3 comments now — one which was posted before my colleague, Jim Luther’s, and two afterwards, yet Judge Luther’s comment, made several days ago, is the last of 9 total.

If they’re not being censored, are they first going to the sub-basement to be classified by category, sub-category, and sub-sub-category during the lunch break of a beleaguered, bespectacled, and forgotten employee, and then carried upstairs, mustard-stained, with a stack of other comments after the passage of the new canon promoting censorship?

I understand. The AOC is censoring your comments but not Judge Luthor’s and you did post a link and mentioned that you’ve now submitted three comments, all of which are being put in front of tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum at the Ministry of Truth and Enlightenment at the AOC.

I was prepared to give the JC one last opportunity to accept a public comment from me about the proposed ethics rule, but upon clicking on the link, I learned it had been disabled.

I became quite concerned. Someone must warn the Judicial Council that my very own Chief Justice (it’s okay, the Chief Justice uses the same fond intimacy in referring to trial courts as “my courts”) will commit ethics violations if she ever again speaks as freely as she did at the meeting of the Judges Association in Monterey. On October 14, 2012 my Chief Justice revealed she “whispers in the ears of a few attorney organizations” to ask them to arrange a reception to wow newly-elected legislators and offer them “swag bags with goodies”. If other judges follow her example and, at her urging, “whisper with one voice”, the wave of ethics violations would overwhelm the disciplinary agency, and forever tarnish the reputation of the Judicial Branch.

So, if the link for comments ever heals up, I hope someone takes the initiative to urge the JC to put more thought into this rule. It could potentially destroy the lives of hundreds of honest judges who, merely by the free expression of their one voice, would soon be charged with ethics violations. Many of you have seen it, but here is the comment, which, if history is kind to my Chief Justice, will be deleted from the internet as efficiently as the JC censors unfavorable public comments (and now I’m miffed as to how mine was considered as such since I simply took a stand for my Chief Justice’s and other judges’ right to make these sort of statements):

“We want to meet those 40 legislators as soon as possible. We want a reception of some sort. And so I’m not sure honestly whether the Judicial Council or CJA can do it, so I’ve kind of whispered in the ears of a few attorney organizations that, gee, wouldn’t it be nice if we paid for a reception and invited the Judicial Council and all the judges to be there ….”

We thought you might have only criticized the AOC. We didn’t mention pointing out the grand hypocrisy exhibited by my chief justice was also a reason to be censored.

Lets not forget the other role of the Ministry of Truth.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Judicial Council doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if the Chief Justice issues an edict that turns out to be conflicting with her own behavior, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite history so that any apparent hypocrisy must exist only in your head. The deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Judicial Council is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they conduct another 2 billion dollar boondoggle or make a mistake) for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Judicial Council must seem eternally right and strong.

“The Judicial Council makes a mistake in supposing that it’s the judges who maintain superior knowledge of the excesses of the AOC contributing to the trial court funding crisis and the diminished credibility of the judicial branch within the legislature. However, the word is out and it is spreading. It is now too late for the AOC to close the door.

Rather than wasting energy drafting unnecessary rules to silence judges, please devote attention to cleaning your own house. Although AB 1208 will likely die quietly in the Senate, if the AOC continues to try to stifle, rather than listen to, the voices of dissent another such bill is inevitable.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Sears, those in charge at 455 Golden Gate Avenue are blind, deaf, and dumb to these simple truths.

[…] the trial courts it will be their budgets and that their reserves are being swept a year early. With that nifty new ethics opinion that cautions you against advocating for courts over construction, you’re forced to back the central […]

[…] they be hand written with your signature and snail-mailed personally to him. Second, it was with this proposed new rule of court that suggests that speaking with anything but one voice is an ethics… Now, prior restraint of speech has returned to the star […]

[…] they be hand written with your signature and snail-mailed personally to him. Second, it was with this proposed new rule of court that suggests that speaking with anything but one voice is an ethics… Now, prior restraint of speech has returned to the star […]